Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey Day (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Day

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This unofficial holiday is not notable in the slightest. So a few papers picked up on it on a slow news day, WP:NOTNEWS applies. JBsupreme (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST MONKEY KEEP POSSIBLE. Besides being the greatest holiday ever, the references in the article and a quick google search show this catapults cleanly over the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability with plenty of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", including The Detroit News, Financial Times Deutschland, and BBC Radio. As these sources cover several countries over the course of the last decade, this is clearly more than just "a slow news day." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most sources come from the Detroit newspapers or from some probably primary sources. Even if those sources mention it, that's not the criteria we use. The criteria we use is notability, which means non-trivial coverage, outside of a local area, all of that tempered with the encyclopedic qualities. This clearly is not. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For my geographically challenged colleague above, the sourced journals from Hamburg, Denver, Detroit, Montreal and more are not from the same "local area." Or are you looking for interplanetary notability? --Dragonfiend (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep - Sheesh, ok fine, drop some of the sarcasm. You have updated it, there were 3 Detroit sources, etc. I'm going to break down the current crop of references though so people have a clear idea of what's there, rather than blanket assertions that there are "multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage across multiple years in multiple countries", because I think that overplays your hand. (note that I've changed my !vote).

Not online
A short, "going out" paragraph with a byline of monkeyday.com, this is a trivial mention
The pdf link is broken, and I don't see any source page.
The Denver link, and an actual real story about it. It also references the website www.monkeyday.com, but this is the best assertion of notability in the group.
An editorial in a nonmainstream paper that asks "Who the fuck would make up a holiday to celebrate monkeys?" It also makes a nontrivial mention, but there is a paper like this in every city, often paid for by advertising. I don't think that editorial articles in these sorts of paper, by themselves, indicate much.
A blog post announcing the end of the blog post announced in 7
The same blog post as 6, except beginning the contest
Not online, but the headline doesn't indicate anything about the day
A short blurb, but a nontrivial mention. A good mention, probably a reliable source.
Mention about a gallery owner that decided to do a monkey day related promotional something.
An advertising blurb about it, much like 2.

All together, it's a weak keep. None of those by themselves is probably enough, but taken as a whole I have to change my mind. Shadowjams (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A topic with multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage across multiple years in multiple countries is notable. Simply reading the article's references, including 15 paragraphs on this holiday in a German newspaper, ought to quiet the above concerns about "non-trivial coverage, outside of a local area". --Dragonfiend (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep Plenty of diverse and notable sources available on the subject, there are also additional media sources listed on the website monkeyday.com/faq that do not seem to have even been cited yet. Looking at the media attention, the sources seem to have sequentially grown in just the two years since this article was last nominated and approved in 2007. Definitely notable and should be kept. With as much media attention and sources that it has, I don't really see why this is even up for deletion? SpaFon (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above Editor has made 3 edits. 2 to Monkey Day, and one to this article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.